The role of corporate brand image for B2B relationships of ...

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The role of corporate brand image for B2B relationships of logistics serviceproviders in ChinaJohn M.T. Balmera,⁎, Zhibin Linb, Weifeng Chena, Xinming Heba Brunel University Business School, Brunel University London, United Kingdomb Durham University Business School, Durham University, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Corporate Brand ImageChinaDual Process TheoryB2B Corporate Brand ImageIndustrial Corporate Brand Image

A B S T R A C T

This study examines the strategic significance of B2B corporate brand image of global logistics corporate brandproviders in China offering international express parcel/postage delivery services. Drawing on dual-processtheory the study revealed the processing of industrial corporate brand image by managers corresponds to System1 processing (immediate, effortless and non-conscious), and the conceptualization of corporate brand attributesequates to System 2 processing (considered, deliberate and cerebral). However, in selecting an industrial cor-porate brand managers accorded greater importance to industrial corporate brand image and to System 1processing. The study also found that a positive industrial corporate brand image of logistics brands has afavorable impact apropos premium pricing and brand retention. As such, the research reveals how the selectionof an industrial corporate brand by managers is materially shaped by corporate brand image and, moreover, theprocess of selection is more nuanced and complicated that has hitherto been realized.

1. Introduction

To date, most research on brand image focuses on the image ofproducts and services and comparatively few studies focus on the imageof companies (corporate brand image). Moreover, there is a paucity ofresearch on corporate image in the business-to-business (B2B) sectorand which we, in this article, give the designation industrial corporatebrand image. Furthermore, empirical research on the value of industrialcorporate brand image of logistics companies operating in rapidlyemerging/transitional economies markets is insubstantial. Mindful ofthese research gaps, our study explores industrial corporate brandimage from the perspective of organizational buyers in Dalian, a majorChinese logistic hub, who utilize international express parcel/postagedelivery services. More particularly, this empirical study scrutinizesB2B logistics brands of global, as well as local, brands operating in andout of mainland China.

The research is distinctive in that our study on industrial corporatebrand image is informed by nostrums of dual process theory (System 1and System 2 processing) which, although having its roots in cognitivepsychology, has also advanced marketing theory (Dhar & Gorlin, 2013;Evans, 1984; Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Graf & Landwehr, 2015;Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Stanovich &West, 2000). However, dual process theory has not been utilized in

relation to brand image, corporate brand image and corporate imageresearch, nor, more generally, employed in industrial marketing/B2Bcontexts. This study, with its focus on industrial corporate brand image,conjoins industrial marking with the corporate brand image notion.Therefore, utilizing dual process theory, this empirical study exploresthe notion that the processing of industrial corporate brand image bymanagers represents System 1 processing (immediate, effortless andnon-conscious), and that service attribute evaluation by managers canbe conceptualized as System 2 processing (considered, deliberate andcerebral). Mindful of existent brand image research, this empiricalstudy also examines whether a positive industrial corporate brandimage of logistics brands has a favorable impact apropos premiumpricing and customer retention. In relation to both dual process theoryand the positive effects on industrial corporate brand image on pre-mium pricing, their corroboration, following on from Easterby-Smith,Thorpe, Jackson, and Lowe (2008), would mean that both perspectivescould, in theoretical terms, be characterized as a research reflection(s). Aresearch reflection is where a research insight in one domain (aproposcorporate brand image in consumer contexts) is found to be applicableto a new context (in relation to industrial corporate brand imageapropos organizational buyers) and, therefore, can be considered as ameaningful theoretical contribution.

Industrial corporate brand image represents a logical development

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.043Received 22 January 2018; Received in revised form 26 March 2020; Accepted 28 March 2020

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.M.T. Balmer), [email protected] (Z. Lin), [email protected] (W. Chen),

[email protected] (X. He).

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

0148-2963/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: John M.T. Balmer, et al., Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.043

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01482963

https://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.043


mailto:[email protected]





of the nascent corporate brand image construct as the literature attests(Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Alwi & Kitchen, 2014; Bravo, Montaner, & Pina,2010; Hawabhay, Abratt, & Peters, 2009; Rindell & Strandvik, 2010;Srivastava & Sharma, 2013; Törmälä & Gyrd-Jones, 2017). Conse-quently, industrial corporate brand image is a specific genus of corpo-rate brand image which has a specific applicability to industrial, ratherthan to consumer-orientated, corporate brands. To date, only a fewstudies have a tangential focus on industrial corporate brand image(Blombäck & Axelsson, 2007; Flax, Bick, & Abratt, 2016; Kotler &Pfoertsch, 2007). Ostensibly, none of the above has been undertaken inthe B2B logistics sector.

Mindful of the early definition of corporate image by Gray andBalmer (1998) and the precepts of dual processing theory, it can beadvanced that there are tripartite explanations of how brand images,corporate brand images and corporate images are constituted. First, animage is formed on the basis of immediate, effortless, non-conscious,rapid and automatic mental attributions of individuals (System 1 pro-cessing); second, where an individual has the requisite abilities andmotivational needs, an image is formed on the basis of significantcognitive deliberations of an individual’s working memory which re-sults in a more-considered mental attribution (System 2 processing).This study primarily focuses on System 1 and System 2 processing.However, it is also conceivable that individuals form images by mar-shalling both System 1 and System 2 approaches as part of an iterativeprocesses (in effect a System 3 approach). Following Becker, Bryman,and Ferguson (2012), in identifying modes of theoretical contribution,the findings of this empirical study aim to make distinctive middle-range theoretical contribution.

This research is timely owing to its focus on China: a country whichhas the fastest-growing logistics market in global terms. Furthermore,the study is important since China is the largest, and unquestionably themost important, of all transitional economies. Significantly, too, it is theworld’s second largest economy, and is predicted to be the world’sbiggest in due course (Balmer & Chen, 2015, 2017). As marketingscholars have observed, industrial marketing managers are attracted bythe growth potential in transitional economies such as China (Dawar &Chattopadhyay, 2002; Douglas, Craig, & Nijssen, 2001). This beingnoted, the progression of transitional economies is, in part, reliant onorganizations having recourse to effective distribution partnerships(Rahman, Melewar, & Sharif, 2014). However, the significance of in-dustrial corporate brand image in transitional economies remains un-explored. This research appears to be the first major study to scrutinizeindustrial corporate brand image in China and the first to examine in-dustrial corporate brand image in China’s logistics sector. An addeddistinction of this inquiry is its focus on indigenous but also foreign,often global, B2B logistics corporate brands offering distinctive expressparcel/postal services in China. Extant research has found Chineseconsumers, as with other developing economies, prefer global brands(Zhan & He, 2012; Ramaswamy, Slden, Steenkamp, & Ramachander2000). However, in terms of this study, there is a relative dearth ofempirical research on industrial corporate brand image industrialmarketing management in China, and in particular relation to China’slogistics sector.

The article continues with a discussion of international logisticbrands in Asia and China and then considers the conceptual backgroundto this study by deliberating on dual process theory, corporate brands,corporate image, brand image, corporate brand image and industrialcorporate brand image. This is followed by the development of hy-potheses and a discussion of the methodology employed. The articlecloses with a reflection on the research findings and a discussion on thelimitations of this study along with avenues for future research.

2. International logistics brands in Asia and China

2.1. Logistics brands in Asian transitional economies

Within Asian transitional economies, well-established foreign lo-gistics corporate brands have the expertise, reach, reliability, speed andflexibility required by both domestic and multinational corporations. InAsia, the leading global logistics brands are mainly from the EU and theUSA (e.g. UPS, FedEx, and DHL). There are national variations of theaforementioned, and a case in point is Japan. There, Japanese logisticsbrands such as Yamato, Nippon Express and Kintetsu are prominent,but, while they enjoy pole positions in Japan and are prominent as partof Japanese international networks, they have been slow to expand inAsia's transitional economies (Foster & Armstrong, 2004). Other no-table logistics brands in Asia (often serving local or national markets)include South Korea's JSI and CEVA logistics companies; Indonesia'sCardig, Kargo, Kamadjaja, and Puninar logistics firms; Malaysia's Tascoand Jara logistics organizations; and India's House of Patels, Gati, VRLand ABC logistics entities.

Among Asia’s most-significant transitional economies, China, India,Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Vietnam etc. the considerable growth ofthe logistics sector corresponds to the dramatic economic developmentin these countries. Arguably, therefore, organizational buyers in se-lecting distribution partnerships are likely to be attracted to logisticscorporate brands offering express parcel/postal delivery services whichhave well-established industrial corporate brand images. The abovebeing noted, to date, the literature on industrial logistics corporatebrands in transitional economies primarily focuses on success factors oflogistics partnerships (Marquardt, Golicic, & Davis, 2011; Rahmanet al., 2014) rather than on industrial corporate brand images per se. Assuch, the findings of this study have the potential to re-address thisomission.

2.2. International logistics brands in China

Characterized as “the workshop of the world” (an epithet last heldby Great Britain in the 19th Century), today, China is resolved to be-come the world’s largest economy. Having progressively disavowed amonolithic and state-controlled economy, a mixed system economy,typified by “capitalistic” and market-orientated features, enjoys a he-gemonic status in China (Balmer & Chen, 2017).

The size and strength of the Chinese market means that for bothglobal and local home-grown B2B corporate logistics brands, China isviewed as a highly lucrative - if not “core” - market. Currently, China’shighly-competitive logistics sector is dominated by a quintet of in-dustrial corporate brands, of which four are foreign-owned. The fivemajor players are FedEx (USA), UPS (USA), DHL (Germany), TNT (TheNetherlands) and EMS (China). Established global corporate brands arelikely to have accorded a more nuanced approach to strategic industrialcorporate brand image building than local (Chinese) brands since thelatter have typically operated in a closed market. The above beingnoted, there are also significant, and high-profile, indigenous logisticalshipping brands which represent an important arm of China’s logisticsinfrastructure and include China Ocean Shipping, SINOTRANS, JizhongEnergy International Logistics and so on. However, given this study’sfocus on international express, rather than generic, parcel/postal de-livery services, this accounts for the focus on the five major logisticsplayers detailed earlier. It also affords another explanation why thisempirical study may be deemed to be distinctive.

3. Conceptual background

By means of context, and to re-iterate, in terms of dual processtheory as utilized in this study, the research is informed by the per-spective that the processing of industrial corporate brand image byorganizational buyers represents a System 1 processing of dual process

J.M.T. Balmer, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2

theory, whereas the logistics service attribute evaluation of industrialcorporate brand image by organizational buyers represents a System 2processing of dual process theory.

3.1. Dual process perspective on cognition, attribution and decision-making

According to Colman (2015), the dual process model in psychologycan be traced back to the late 19th Century with the work of US psy-chologist William James in his Principles of Psychology (James, 1890).According to this psychological approach, information processing anddecision-making of social information is underpinned by two qualita-tively different mechanisms of social information (Colman, 2015). Indual process theory, these mechanisms of social information processingare divided into two general systems: System 1 and System 2 (Aydinli,Bertini, & Lambrecht, 2014; Colman, 2015; Dhar & Gorlin, 2013; Evans& Stanovich, 2013; Graf & Landwehr, 2015; Kahneman, 2003, 2011).System 1 processing is affective in character and involves the un-conscious, rapid and automatic processing of information which ischaracterized by effort-saving heuristics. System 2 processing is cognitivein character and entails a conscious, slow and deliberative processing ofinformation based on time-consuming reasoning. The key distinguishingfeature between the two systems of processing is the engagement ofworking memory (Aydinli et al., 2014; Colman, 2015; Dhar & Gorlin,2013; Kahneman, 2003, 2011). System 1 makes only minimal demandson working memory: they are effortless and therefore primed by de-fault. In contrast, System 2 loads heavily on working memory: it con-sumes scarce processing resources and therefore tends to play a sec-ondary, more corrective role that is activated judiciously by factors inthe environment that cue the motivation to exert mental effort (Evans &Stanovich, 2013). System 2 is activated when people have both themotivation and the ability to engage in meaningful processing (Smith &DeCoster, 2000). The default-interventionist perspective believes thatmost judgments and choices are made intuitively, using System 1 pro-cessing (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002). This is because people, by de-fault, look at the gestalt of the object rather than the details, and therational processing of System 2 is activated only to confirm, or modify,the decision, by evaluating each of the important service attributes(Evans, 2006; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002).

In this study, we conceptualize that the processing of corporatebrand image is a System 1 processing, whereas the logistics serviceattribute evaluation is a System 2 processing. Mindful of the definitionof corporate image by Gray and Balmer (1998), and drawing on the keyprecepts of System 1 and System 2 theories elaborated above, the au-thors propose the definitions of corporate brand image.

“System 1 corporate brand image is a spontaneous affective re-sponse by an individual upon hearing the corporate brand name or inseeing a corporate brand name or logo. Consequently, the resultantattribution of a corporate brand identity by an individual is emotive,unconscious and effortless”.

“System 2 corporate brand image is a reflective cognitive responseby an individual upon hearing the corporate brand name or in seeing acorporate brand name or logo. Consequently, the resultant attributionof a corporate brand identity by an individual is cerebral, consideredand arduous”.

3.2. Corporate brands

Today, corporate brands are accorded considerable importancewithin the marketing canon as the recent literature attests (Muzellec &Lambkin, 2009; Balmer, 2012a, 2012b, 2013; Gyrd-Jones, Merrilees, &Miller, 2013; Liu, Foscht, Eisingerich, & Tsai, 2018; Mohan, Voss,Jiménez, & Gammoh, 2018; Sevel, Abratt, & Kleyn, 2018; Silva, Gerwe,& Becerra, 2017; Törmälä & Gyrd-Jones, 2017; Törmälä & Saraniemi,2018; Tuškej & Podnar, 2018; Essamri, McKechnie, & Winklhofer,2019; Greyser & Urde, 2019; Iglesias, Markovic, Singh, & Sierraet,2019). Formally introduced by Balmer (1995), much of the groundwork

in delineating the nature and strategic significance of corporate brandstook place in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Burt & Sparks, 2002; Ind,1997, 1998; Kapferer, 2012). As such, in articulating the nature of acorporate brand, it was argued that it was derived from an organiza-tion’s corporate identity; required organizational-wide commitment;necessitated a stakeholder focus; was multidisciplinary in scope, andwarranted on-going responsibility from the CEO and the senior man-agement board owing to its normative and strategic significance(Balmer, 1995, 2010, 2012a).

Ind (1997), stressing its instrumental importance, noted that acorporate brand is more than a name or logo but is concerned with anorganization’s corporate values, while Hatch & Schultz (2001, 2013)asserted that it is fundamentally concerned with mission, culture andimage but did not engage with the notion of the corporate brand pro-mise/covenant. A corporate brand represents a powerful covenant (aninformal contract) between a firm and its stakeholders (Balmer, 2001a;Balmer & Gray, 2003; Balmer & Greyser, 2003). Moreover, it is a markof assurance and is dependent on an organization’s corporate identity(what a corporation makes, what it does and how it behaves) deliveringthe brand promise (Balmer, 2012a, 2012b). The real value of a corpo-rate brand is derived from its emotional ownership on the part of cus-tomers and other stakeholders, in contrast to legal ownership, which isvested in the corporation (Balmer, 2012a, 2012b).

Scholars have also noted the saliency of corporate brands in B2Bsectors. As such, industrial corporate brands are strategic assets(Vallaster & Lindgreen, 2011; Webster, 2000) and are important in bothtransitional and mature economies (Leek & Christodoulides, 2012).Extant studies have explicated how, in strategic terms, global brandsdiffer from local brands. Research reveals strategic differences in localversus international brands (Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004). In terms ofmultinational corporate brands (MNB), it has been shown they faceparticular challenges, particularly in relationship to environmentalcontexts, which, typically, are not experienced by domestic brands(Khojastehpour, Ferdous, & Polonsky, 2015). However, in business-to-consumer (B2C) contexts, international corporate brands are invariablyperceived as having a quality aura which is strategically advantageous(Batra et al., 2000). Regarding this study’s focus on China, scholarshave found corporate brands to be important in both emerging and intransitional economies (Dawar & Chattopadhyay, 2002; Douglas et al.,2001; Meyer & Estrin, 2001; Xie & Boggs, 2006; Low, 2007). In suchmarkets, established corporate brands have an advantage in terms ofsuccessful market entry (Low, 2007; Meyer & Estrin, 2001) and arepowerful vehicles for growth and profitability. Adopting a corporatemarketing perspective, it has also been argued that Urde (1994), brandorientation notion can be broadened so that is apposite for corporatebrands and this resulted in the formal introduction of the corporatebrand orientation notion (Balmer, 2013), whereby the corporate brandprovides a guiding philosophy and culture for an organization.

3.3. Corporate image

The corporate image concept came to the fore in the 1950s/early1960s, with notable contributions being made by Boulding (1956),Martineau (1958a, 1958b), Bolger (1959), Bristol (1960), Boorstin(1961), Crespi (1961), and Spector (1961), and several authors beganto explore the relationship between the corporate image and the brand(Swanson, 1957; Tyler, 1957). Arguably, the work of Boulding (1956)and Martineau (1958b) were the most influential of the above, withBoulding (1956) explaining the critical importance of image to thehuman psyche, and, furthermore, noting that there was a priori linkbetween a person’s image of an organization and their resultant beha-vior toward the entity. For his part, Martineau (1958b) commented thatcustomers having favorable corporate images of an organization meanta firm was imbued with a competitive advantage. This perspective hasbeen reflected in subsequent work on the territory (Abratt, 1989;Bristol, 1960; Bernstein, 1984; Dichter, 1985; Dowling, 1986, 1993;


3

Garbett, 1988; Barich & Kotler, 1991; Worcester, 1997; Gray & Balmer,1998; Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001; Melewar & Karaosmanoglu, 2006;Walsh, Mitchell, Jackson, & Beatty, 2009; Tran, Nguyen, Melewar, &Bodoh, 2015). While corporate marketing scholars, arguably, have beenmost conspicuous in their research and scholarship on corporate image,important contributions have been made by others including Alvesson(1990) and Morgan (1986).

According to Gray and Balmer (1998), a corporate image relates tothe mental picture held of an organization by an individual and is whatcomes to mind when a person sees or hears the company logo and/orcorporate name. It represents the totality of impressions and/or per-ceptions held of an organization (Kennedy, 1977; Bromley, 1993;Davies, Chun, DaSilva, & Roper, 2003). A corporate image is con-stituted of functional and emotional meanings (Kennedy, 1977). Emo-tional feelings are psychological in character and have their sources inthe individual experiences of an organization and the processing ofknowledge relating to a firm’s characteristics (Nguyen & Leblanc,2001).

Whereas, the default explanation apropos corporate image today isthat it is understood to relate to an individual’s conceptualization of anorganization (Gray & Balmer, 1998; Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten,2010), the concept has a number of variants (Balmer, 1998, 2001b;Balmer & Greyser, 2003). As such, the corporate image has been viewedprimarily from a corporate image management perspective in terms ofthe controlling, or fashioning, of a corporate image or can sometimes beunderstood as a broad, single stereotype image where commonly-heldperceptions of a firm are shared, even across stakeholder groups(Balmer & Greyser, 2003). The latter perspective was popularized byMartineau (1958b) in his celebrated Harvard Business Review article. Assuch, a somewhat nuanced, and broader, definition has been profferedwhereby a corporate image is viewed as the immediate mental per-ception held of an organization by an individual, while recognizing thatit may have an applicability to a group, groups or networks (Balmer,2011b).

To date, most studies have focused on the corporate image conceptwhile comparatively few studies have focused on corporate brandimage. Consequently, corporate brand image research and scholarshipdraws on the corporate image canon. Corporate marketing scholarshiphas long stressed the strategic requisite of having a strong and favorablecorporate image.

This empirical study, by marshalling dual process theory, has thepotential to expand the general comprehension of corporate image andcorporate brand image. This is because, while System 1 of dual processtheory is broadly analogous to the notion that corporate image re-presents the immediate mental picture an individual has of an organi-zation or corporate brand (Gray & Balmer, 1998), System 2 of thistheory allows for an individual to form an image of an organization orcorporate brand only after considerable cognitive engagement.

3.4. Brand image

The construction and maintenance of brand image is a pre-requisiteof brand management (Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986) and brandimage and brand awareness are the bases for brand equity (Keller,1993). It has also been observed that not all brand characteristics are ofsimilar utility in shaping brand image (Park et al., 1986). There areoften strategic differences between local and global brands (Schuiling &Kapferer, 2004). The benefits of a positive corporate image are broadand can translate into superior financial performance (Fill &Dimopoulou, 1999; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Fombrun & Van Riel,1997; Greyser, 1999); engender customer retention (Andreassen &Lindestad, 1998; Barich & Kotler, 1991; Greyser, 1999; Walsh &Wiedmann, 2004); can shed light on a firm’s corporate ability and so-cial responsibility (Brown & Dacin, 1997); and suggest that a firm hasmet customers’ wants and needs (Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). Corporateimage is particularly important for service firms because of the lack of

tangibility and their greater reliance on perception (Walsh et al., 2009).Customers often perceive the global nature of multinational corporatebrands in favorable terms and the aforementioned can engender con-sumer loyalty (Swoboda & Hirschmann, 2016). Corporate image hasalso been accorded importance in industrial marketing contexts(Brown, Dacin, & Pitt, 2010; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; De Roeck, Maon, &Lejeune, 2013; Dowling, 1986; Flax et al., 2016; Panitz, 1988; Sims,1979; Spyropoulou, Skarmeas, & Katsikeas, 2010). In the main, suchresearch has focused on mature rather than on emerging markets, al-though there are exceptions (Flax et al., 2016; Lin & He, 2017). Im-portantly, too, is the signaling quality of a corporate brand’s image interms of trustworthiness, along with strategic market commitment inthe value chain as noted by Normann and Ramirez (1993). In relation tothis, consumers in developing nations have a more positive image ofbrands from developed nations (Batra et al., 2000) and, in China, in-ternational luxury brands have a superior image in contrast to in-digenous brands (Zhan & He, 2012). This being said, to date, extantresearch has not explored the above in B2B contexts and, specifically, inrelation to China.

3.5. Corporate brand image and industrial corporate brand image

Brand image has been a distinctive leitmotif within the product andservices brand management canon and it has an important role inbrand-positioning strategies (Park et al., 1986). However, corporatebrand image can be characterized as an emergent concept, while theindustrial corporate brand image is as entirely new concept which werefer to in our study. Corporate marketing scholars have emphasizedhow the acquisition of a favorable corporate brand image is the ulti-mate goal of the corporate brand management process (Abratt & Kleyn,2012; Hawabhay et al., 2009). Other researchers have reflected on itsdynamism (Rindell & Strandvik, 2010); its importance to customer sa-tisfaction (Martenson, 2007; Srivastava & Sharma, 2013); its sig-nificance in burnishing product brand image (Muzellec & Lambkin,2009) and its role in engendering behavioral responses (Alwi & Kitchen,2014). Corporate brand image has been discussed in relation to theretail sector (Da Silva & Alwi, 2006) and on-line corporate brand image(Da Silva & Alwi, 2007). Its relationship with corporate communica-tions (Hawabhay et al., 2009) and its importance to financial serviceshas also been enumerated (Bravo et al., 2010). Its development andvalidation apropos corporate brand heritage (Rindell, Santos, & Pintode Lima, 2015) and its co-creation (Törmälä & Saraniemi, 2018) hasalso been discussed.

In contrast, scholarship on what we call industrial corporate brandimage is scant (Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004; Blombäck &Axelsson, 2007; Flax et al., 2016; Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2007). However,extant studies which refer to the area have shown that it can have amaterial impact on brand equity (Bendixen et al., 2004; Kotler &Pfoertsch, 2007); and can have a noticeable effect on the selection andengagement of new B2B subcontractors in the supply of components(Blombäck & Axelsson, 2007).

The review of the literature confirmed the absence of an empiricalstudy on industrial corporate brand image in the logistics sector and, todate, there is only one study on corporate brand image within greaterChina focused and this focused on the Starbucks corporate brand inTaiwan (Tu, Wang, & Chang, 2012).

4. Hypothesis development

4.1. Effects of corporate brand image evaluation on retention and pricepremium

Informed by dual process theory, the processing of corporate brandimage represents a typical System 1 processing, because making holisticassociations is a characteristic of intuiting (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Cor-porate brand image is the ‘gestalt’ of the corporate brand (Stern,


4

Zinkhan, & Jaju, 2001). It is the global total impression, or holisticassociations about the corporation (Alwi & Kitchen, 2014). Further-more, it is an immediate impression retrieved from an individual’smemory (Stuart, 1999). Most of our ordinary everyday issues arehandled effectively based on our intuition (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).In complex and highly-demanding situations, trained professionals maystill use intuition to make effective judgments and decisions (Dane &Pratt, 2007). Therefore, despite the differences between individualconsumers and organization buyers (Seyedghorban, Matanda, &LaPlaca, 2016), the holistic processing of corporate brand image mayhave the same impact on decision-making in both consumer and B2Bmarkets. We can expect that industrial corporate brand image has asignificant role in organization buyer decision-making in terms ofcontract renewal and premium pricing.

Previous empirical evidence has indicated that customers’ percep-tions of corporate brand image influence consumers’ attitudes towardsthe brand and, therefore, shape corporate brand value (Cretu & Brodie,2007; Keller, 1993; Persson, 2010). When brand equity is high, custo-mers are predisposed to pay a price premium (Bendixen et al., 2004).Leading industrial corporate brands can command a price premium of6.8% in relation to typical industrial brands and 14% over new and/orunknown industrial corporate brands (Bendixen et al., 2004). Corporatebrand equity - the propensity for business customers to repurchase andpay a premium price for a corporate brand - is equally applicable in B2Bcontexts (Bendixen et al., 2004; Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2007). However,Cretu and Brodie (2007) did not find evidence to support the contentionthat brand image had an impact on customer loyalty (measured bycustomer willingness to increase spending and to recommend thecompany). Thus, prior empirical findings on the effect of brand imageon buyer decisions are inconclusive, and further empirical testing iswarranted, especially in the context of corporate brand image in Chinaas a rapidly-developing market. As such, the following hypothesis wasput forward for empirical testing:

H1(a): Industrial corporate brand image positively relates to reten-tion.H1(b): Industrial corporate brand image positively relates to pricepremium.

4.2. Effects of logistics service attribute evaluation on retention and pricepremium

There are two divergent views regarding the relations between theSystem 1 and System 2 processing in dual process theory: one is the‘parallel-competitive’ perspective and the other is the ‘default-inter-ventionist’ perspective (Graf & Landwehr, 2015). The former posits thatboth systems of processing are activated in parallel in response to asituation and compete to reach a judgement (Evans & Stanovich, 2013),while the latter believes that most judgements and choices are madeintuitively, using System 1 processing (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002).People by default look at the gestalt of the object rather than the details,and the rational processing of System 2 is activated only to confirm, ormodify, the decision, by evaluating each of important service attributes(Evans, 2006; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002). Following this perspec-tive, we can therefore deduce that organization buyers make an initialdecision regarding retention and price premium, followed by an eva-luation of key logistics service attributes.

In contrast to corporate brand image processing (System 1), attri-bute evaluation may involve a highly-complex cost and benefitweighting decision process, as shown in the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) models and particularly supplier selection studies inoperational research (Ho, Xu, & Dey, 2010; Luoma, 2016). Most studiesof organizational buying behavior assume a rational, means-end deci-sion-making logic. However, the generally accepted linear approach hasbeen questioned (Makkonen, Olkkonen, & Halinen, 2012). Decision-makers assess a subset of important attributes to simplify choice. Cost-

benefit analyses are utilized as a part of the supplier selection decisionto maximize the utility for the firm (Makkonen et al., 2012). Corporatebrand attributes of supplier brands should analyze via the lens of ex-pected value (Glynn, 2012). The logistics service provider selectionliterature is often based on this rational model of decision-making butsome scholars have concluded the decision-making process can be fuzzy(Ding, Liang, Yeh, & Yeh, 2005). The literature (Ding et al., 2005;Jharkharia & Shankar, 2007; Lin & Lee, 2009; Park, Choi, & Zhang,2009; Voss, Page, Keller, & Ozment, 2006) has variously identified keylogistics service attributes including delivery, reliability, response,flexibility, coverage, professionalism, tracking, variety, complainthandling and price. For example, Ding et al. (2005) organize differentattributes into six criteria to examine shippers’ selection of courierservice providers in Taiwan; and Voss et al. (2006) group different at-tributes into nine criteria to examine carrier choice by logistics man-agers in the USA. As such, the following hypothesis was put forward forempirical testing:

H2(a): Industrial corporate brand attribute evaluation positivelyrelates to retention.H2(b): Industrial corporate brand attribute evaluation positivelyrelates to price premium.

4.3. Relationships between corporate brand image and attribute evaluation

Corporate brand image and attribute evaluation can be linkedthrough their respective processing at different levels of the same en-tity, the corporate brand. Corporate brand image may be viewed as thegeneral or holistic processing of the corporate brand (Alwi & Kitchen,2014), while the multi-attribute evaluation is the specific or piecemealprocessing of the corporate brand. Sonnier and Ainslie (2011) proposethat an overall, holistic brand image can be formed through customers’experience of specific attributes of a product or service. Similarly,Aydin and Özer (2005) suggest that corporate brand image is the resultof a process such as the direct experience of the firm and/or informa-tion obtained from different sources such as advertisements and word-of-mouth. In addition to corporate communications, the corporatebrand image is shaped by what the customer experiences and themanner in which the corporate brand is delivered (Grönroos, 1984;Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). As such, the following hypothesis was putforward for empirical testing:

H3: Logistic service attribute evaluation positively relates to in-dustrial corporate brand image.

Given that logistics service attribute evaluation has a positive effecton industrial corporate brand image (H3), and that industrial corporatebrand in turn influences (a) retention and (b) price premium (H1),according to Baron & Kenny (1986), industrial corporate brand couldpotentially perform a mediation role between attribute evaluation andthe decision outcomes of retention and price premium. Thus:

H4: Industrial corporate brand image partially mediates the re-lationships between logistic service attribute evaluation and: (a)retention, and (b) price premium in China.

Fig. 1 summarizes the research model.

5. Methods

5.1. Sampling and data collection

This research used a web-based survey hosted by a commercialsurvey tool website (www.diaochapai.com). Data from respondentswere extracted from a database of B2B customers of four global and onelocal global logistics service providers operating out of China: FedEx


5

http://www.diaochapai.com

(USA), UPS (USA), DHL (Germany), TNT (The Netherlands) and EMS(China) offering international express delivery services: see Table 1. Thetable details the countries of origin of the five major logistical corporatebrands; the year they were established; their respective positions inForbes’ ranking of the world’s most valuable brands; their revenuestreams; additional company details; and the dates of their first op-erations in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and mainland China. Thelatter dates have been included because they might be meaningful interms of their latent industrial corporate brand image and thereforeconsequential in their resultant industrial corporate brand image withinChina.

The researchers had access to a database provided by a logisticsservice agency based in the city of Dalian: one of China’s foremost lo-gistics centers. The original purpose of the database is for CustomerRelationship Management, which is a record of all the customers thatuse the agency’s service to access to the international logistics servicesproviders. The database was used as a sampling frame to identify in-dividuals responsible for international express parcel and postal de-livery in their organizations. One thousand contacts were randomlyselected and approached by telephone. Subsequently, they received afollow-up email and a letter. These reiterated the objectives of the re-search and provided a link to the web-based survey. The investigatorssent two further follow-up emails to remind contacts who did not re-spond to maximize the response rate. In total, 276 valid responses werereceived, representing a response rate of 27.6%. Table 2 below shows

the profile of the respondents and the companies.

5.2. Measures

Each respondent was instructed to answer the survey by thinking ofa major Logistical Service Provider (LSP) corporate brand (industrialcorporate brand) they had used for their international express parcel/postal delivery in the current contract year. The attribute importanceand performance rating, industrial corporate brand image, retentionand price premium were then all based on the evaluation of this focalLSP brand.

The researchers adopted three global items measuring industrialcorporate brand image, adapted from Bravo et al. (2010): this LSPbrand fulfils its promises (Item 1), inspires confidence (Item 2), andmakes a good impression on me (Item 3). The two items measuringretention were adapted from Wallenburg and Lukassen (2011); and twoitems measuring price premium adapted from Zeithaml, Berry, andParasuraman (1996). Given that brand image at attribute level is con-text-specific (Lemmink, Schuijf, & Streukens, 2003), the researchersfollowed the process of item generation as suggested by Oh (2001) forthe development of items measuring the specific attributes of industriallogistics corporate brands examined in this study.

As a point of departure, an initial list of items was drawn up forreview by an expert panel based on the literature on LSP selectioncriteria to evaluate attribute-specific industrial corporate brand per-formance. The expert panel helped with item number reduction andrefinement, and ensured face/content validity. Table 3 lists the 10 itemsselected for this study. The attributes include: the core logistics serviceelements, i.e. on-time and accurate delivery (A1), reliability of delivery(A2), quick response (A3), flexibility (A4), and geographical spread(A5); employee professionalism (A6), and supporting services such astracking and information sharing (A7); the variety of ancillary services(A8) and complaint handling (A9); and finally, more general factorssuch as price (A10).

Given that the construct of attribute performance is conceptualizedto be ‘formed’ through customer experience, it was deemed appropriateto measure attribute performance formatively. This is because eachattribute is considered to influence the construct (Diamantopoulos &Winklhofer, 2001).

5.3. Measurement validity and reliability

Partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) wasused to test the model. The software used in this study is SmartPLS 3.The commonly adopted guidelines as set by Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt(2011) were followed, using a two-step procedure to assess the ade-quacy of the model. To test the significance of model estimates, the t-

Industrial Corporate Brand

Image

Logistics Attribute

Performance

Price Premium

Retention

System 2: H2a

System 2: H2b

H3

System 1: H1a

System 1: H1bH4b

H4a

Fig. 1. Research model of industrial corporate brand image vis-à-vis B2B cus-tomer retention and price premium.

Table 1Major global logistics industrial corporate brands operating in China.

Logistics service providers FedEx UPS DHL TNT EMS

Country of Origin USA USA Germany Netherlands ChinaYear established 1971 1907 1969 1946 1980Forbes World’s Most Valuable

Brands Ranking 2015#80 #40 #195 #1566

Revenue (in billions) $47.5 (2015) $58.36 (2015) €56.63 (2014) €6.68 (2014)Year established in Hong Kong 1984 1988 1972 1978Year established in Taiwan 1984 1988 1973 1988Year established in Singapore 1984 1988 1972 1974Year established in mainland

China1984 1988 1981 1988 1980

Profile of Chinese operations inChina

National Coverage National Coverage National Coverage Partial Coverage National CoverageMajor InternationalGateways

Major InternationalGateways


Moderate InternationalGateways


Employees:9500 + employees

Employees: 6476employees

Employees:6000 + employees

Employees: 3000employees

Employees: nearly100,000 employees


6

statistics were computed using 5000 bootstrap re-samples (Hair et al.,2011).

The formative construct was evaluated by examining multi-collinearity among the attributes and each attributes weight (relativeimportance) and loading (absolute importance). As shown in Table 4,all attributes’ variance inflation factors (VIFs) were lower than five:thus, multicollinearity was not an issue of concern (Hair et al., 2011).Results for item weight and loading indicated that not all the itemweights were significant, but all the factor loadings were: therefore, allitems were retained for further analysis. The reflective constructs werethen evaluated by examining item loading, composite reliability, con-vergent validity and discriminant validity (also shown in Table 4). Allthe item loadings were significant and were above the recommendedvalue of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2011). The composite reliability (CR) exceedsthe recommended threshold of 0.7, and the average variance extracted(AVE) values are well above the recommended minimal threshold of 0.5(Hair et al., 2011).

Results in Table 5 indicate that the square roots of the AVE (whereapplicable) exceed the correlations between every pair of latent vari-ables. Thus, the discriminant validity can be established. The overallmeasurement model can be confirmed to be valid and reliable.

To test if there is the potential common method bias in our data, weconducted a full collinearity assessment, the latest commonly used

common method test in PLS-SEM, proposed by Kock (2015). The resultsof the test (Table 6 below) show that most of our inter-construct var-iance inflation factors (VIFs) are smaller than 3.3, the lowest thresholdlevel to be considered as having a common method bias (Kock, 2015).Thus, common method bias is not an issue of concern in the measure-ment model.

5.4. Structural model results

The evaluation of the structural model shows that the coefficients ofdetermination of the endogenous latent variables (R2) are acceptable:0.31 (corporate brand image), 0.48 (retention) and 0.45 (price pre-mium: Fig. 2). Using the blindfolding procedure, it was found that theStone-Geisser Q2 values for all the endogenous latent variables arelarger than zero, suggesting the predictive relevance of the explanatoryvariables. The path coefficients and t-values indicate that industrialcorporate brand image has positive relationships with retention andprice premium, supporting H1a and H1b. Support was also found forH2a and H2b, which suggest the positive impact of attribute perfor-mance on retention and price premium. Attribute performance wasfound to be positively related to industrial corporate brand image,supporting H3.

To test the mediation hypotheses of H4a and H4b, we followed Hair,

Table 2Respondent and company profile.

Total count Total percentage EMS Fedex UPS TNT DHL Others

Respondent age18–22 24 8.7 17 4 2 0 1 023–29 90 32.7 39 19 10 4 14 430–39 80 29.1 31 22 9 2 16 040–49 57 20.7 27 6 8 5 11 050–59 21 7.6 7 5 3 0 6 060 and above 3 1.1 1 1 0 0 0 1

Respondent genderMale 161 58.5 70 38 17 4 29 3Female 114 41.5 52 19 15 7 19 2

Company’s industryTextile & garment 65 23.6 38 14 4 0 9 0Chemical, rubber & plastics 45 16.4 15 13 10 2 5 0Metal & machinery 58 21.1 25 9 4 2 15 3Electronic, optical & electrical 94 34.2 40 20 8 7 17 2Others 13 4.7 4 1 6 0 2 0

Company size*Micro 39 14.2 11 8 8 4 7 1Small 100 36.4 36 26 15 4 17 2Medium 87 31.6 46 18 5 0 17 1

Note: According to the China National Statistics Bureau published document (http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/201801/t20180103_1569357.html), every industryhas it specific criteria to classify firm size. For example, in the manufacturing industry, using the number of employees (X), we classify a company as: Large ifX ≥ 1000; Medium if 300 ≤ X ＜ 1000; Small if 20 ≤ X ＜ 300; and Micro if X ＜ 20.

Table 3Key logistics service attributes.

Attributes Description and academic sources

A1 Delivery On-time and accurate delivery (Ding et al., 2005; Park et al., 2009)A2 Reliability Reliability of delivery (Voss et al., 2006); transit time consistency (Ding et al., 2005) and dependabilityA3 Response Quick response to customer requests (Lin & Lee, 2009)A4 Flexibility Service flexibility (Lin & Lee, 2009), flexibility in operations and delivery (Jharkharia & Shankar, 2007), and capability of emergency processing

(Ding et al., 2005)A5 Coverage Geographical spread (Jharkharia & Shankar, 2007)A6 Professionalism Staff courtesy and quality (Lin & Lee, 2009); understanding shippers' needs, quality of salesmanship, the attitude of personnel (Ding et al., 2005)A7 Tracking Tracking facilities (Lin & Lee, 2009), shipment tracking and information services (Ding et al., 2005), and information sharing (Jharkharia & Shankar,

2007)A8 Variety The range of ancillary services (Jharkharia & Shankar, 2007), diversity and completeness of service (Ding et al., 2005), and diversified services (Lin &

Lee, 2009)A9 Complaint handling Complaint processing (Ding et al., 2005) and follow-up (Voss et al., 2006)A10 Price Reasonableness of freight rate and clarity of tariff (Ding et al., 2005), cost of service (Jharkharia & Shankar, 2007), and freight loss (Lin & Lee, 2009)


7

http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/201801/t20180103_1569357.html

Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016) recommendation by using the boot-strapping procedure. The results indicate the indirect effect of logisticservice attribute evaluation on retention through industrial corporatebrand image is significant (indirect effect = 0.302, t-value = 7.975,97.5% confidence interval = [0.227, 0.375]). The indirect effect oflogistic service attribute evaluation on price premium through in-dustrial corporate brand image is also significant (indirect ef-fect = 0.251, t-value = 6.911, 97.5% confidence interval = [0.181,0.321]). Given that there are significant direct effects from industrialcorporate brand image and the two outcome variables, the mediationeffects are considered as partial. Thus, H4a and H4b were supported.The hypothesis testing results were summarized in Table 7.

6. Discussion

6.1. Theoretical implications

This study advances the general comprehension of corporate brand

image by confirming how the industrial corporate brand images held byindividual organizational buyers conform to the psychological norms ofdual process theory: both System 1 and System 2 were shown to bemeaningful.

In this study, the processing of industrial corporate brand image byorganizational buyers was found to correspond to System 1 of dualprocess theory. According to System 1 theory, organizational buyersengage in effort -conserving heuristics which entail a rapid assessmentof information and, overall, their response is affective in character. Assuch, a System 1 designation of corporate brand image/industrial cor-porate brand image corresponds to the default definition of corporateimage, which explains how corporate image represents an immediatemental picture individuals hold of an organization, or of a corporatebrand, (Gray & Balmer, 1998). In contrast, the processing of logisticsservice attribution evaluation of organizational buyers was consistentwith System 2 processing. In accordance with System 2 theory, orga-nizational buyers undertake a vastly more-considered, systematic andlengthier and systematic appraisal of information pertaining to the at-tributes of an industrial corporate brand. Unlike System 1 theory, thereis greater deliberation and the psychological engagement of System 2theory is cognitive rather than affective in nature. The consideration ofa corporate brand’s attributes corresponds to the view that an organi-zation’s corporate identity (a company’s distinctive and defining attri-butes) are highly germane for corporate brand management since they,in effect, deliver the corporate brand promise (Balmer, 2012a). As such,the importance of both System 1 and System 2 in terms of the reasoningof industrial corporate brand image highlights the complexity of brandimage formation which, hitherto, has not be explained. It also confirmsthe saliency of dual process theory in comprehending industrial cor-porate image formation. Following on from the modes of theoreticalcontribution outlined by Easterby-Smith et al. (2008), the theoreticaladvance represented in this empirical study can be characterized as aresearch reflection. This theoretical contribution - a research reflection -is where an existing theory (dual process theory) is shown to have anapplicability to another field: in this case apropos corporate brandimage and, moreover, in relation to industrial corporate brand image.Furthermore, in the context of this study, it has revealed a similaritybetween the psychological processes of individuals in developedcountries (where dual process theory originated) and in China.

Furthermore, this research advances, broadens and corroborates thefindings of Blombäck and Axelsson (2007), in terms of the importantrole of corporate brand image in supplier assessment in industrialmarketing management contexts. This may also be regarded as anotherresearch reflection insight. This is because this study’s focus on Chinese

Table 4Scale items and convergent validity.

Constructs/Items Weights VIF Loading

Logistics attribute performanceA1 Delivery 0.18 3.42 0.85A2 Reliability 0.17 3.47 0.86A3 Response 0.09 3.31 0.82A4 Flexibility −0.05 3.79 0.80A5 Coverage 0.03 2.24 0.71A6 Professionalism 0.09 2.45 0.77A7 Tracking 0.20 3.76 0.84A8 Variety 0.24 3.08 0.85A9 Complaint handling 0.01 2.37 0.72A10 Price 0.28 1.59 0.71

Corporate brand image CR = 0.94, AVE = 0.83CBI1 This LSP always fulfils its promises 0.87CBI2 This LSP inspires confidence 0.92CBI3 This LSP makes a good impression on me 0.94

Retention CR = 0.94, AVE = 0.88RE1 We will continue using this LSP in the future 0.94RE2 We intend to extend existing contracts with this LSP when they

expire.0.94

Price premium CR = 0.92, AVE = 0.85PP1 We will continue using this LSP if its price increases somewhat. 0.93PP2 We are willing to pay a higher price for this LSP than other

providers0.91

Notes: CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

Table 5Latent variable correlations and square roots of AVE.

1 2 3 4

1 CBI 0.912 LAP 0.56 NA3 Price Premium 0.61 0.54 0.924 Retention 0.67 0.53 0.70 0.94

Notes: Boldface numbers on the diagonal are the square root of the averagevariance extracted; CBI = corporate brand image; LAP = Logistics AttributePerformance.

Table 6Inter-construct variance inflation factors (common method variance test).

LAP CBI Price Premium Retention

LAP – 1.52 1.489 1.636CBI 2.425 – 2.446 2.228Price Premium 3.304 3.296 – 2.188Retention 3.836 3.286 2.42 –

Fig. 2. Structural model results (t-values in parentheses).


8

organizational buyers’ images of express local and foreign logisticscorporate brands operating in and out of Dalian revealed how theirimages exerted a material impact regarding (a) price premium, and (b)retention. Analogous insights have been found in developed countries(Blombäck & Axelsson, 2007). Seemingly, therefore, this study - thefirst of its kind that has taken place within China - has revealed howindustrial corporate brand image is equally important to Chinese or-ganizational buyers as it is to their western counterparts. In this study,it was also found that industrial corporate brand image and attributeperformance evaluation influence buyers’ decisions to renew the con-tract or accept a price premium (based on the significant direct effectfrom both constructs, i.e. H1 & H2). To reiterate, mindful of the insightsfrom dual process theory, the findings showed that both System 1 andSystem 2 are in operation in organization buyer decision-making interms of retention and price premium.

Although the study revealed the saliency of System 1 and System 2theory it was also found that Chinese organizational buyers, in makingpurchase decisions, rely more on industrial corporate brand image thanattribute perception (by comparing their effect sizes 0.54 & 0.45 versus0.23 & 0.29). This implies that System 1 processing has a stronger effectthan System 2 processing in organization buyer decision-making. Thisin part can be explained System 2 entails decision making that is moreinvolved and, as such, makes considerable cognitive demands in rela-tion to an holistic processing of industrial corporate brand image(Aydinli et al., 2014; Dhar & Gorlin, 2013; Kahneman, 2003, 2011). Assuch, the findings suggest that organization buyers ascribe greater im-portance to intuition in forming an image of an industrial corporatebrand image. Similary, there is a similitude regarding decision-makingwhich corresponds to consumers in BtoC contexts even though there areclear task differences (Dane & Pratt, 2007).

Third, the partial mediation of brand image suggests that some ofthe effects from attribute performance cannot directly transfer tobuyers’ decision to renew or pay a premium, but can do so indirectlythrough the effect of industrial corporate brand image. In other words,the attribute performance influences corporate image perception, forexample, a swift delivery exceeding customer expectation contributesto the formation of a industrial corporate brand image. Thus, when thetime comes for a decision, a positive industrial corporate brand imagehas an impact of the organizational buyer’s decision-making in terms ofcontract renewal or in paying a price premium. This is consistent withthe second point discussed above. The findings support the default-in-tervention perspective of the dual-process theory (Kahneman &Frederick, 2002) that human minds adopt the principle of “least effort”to optimize the consumption of mental resources. As such, this studycorroborates the utility of extending the theory’s applicability in a B2Bcontext and in addition to the logistics industry in a developing nationsuch as China.

6.2. Managerial implications

Given, the findings showed that organizational buyers utilize bothSystem 1 and System 2 processes in the selection of industrial corporatebrand partners, considerable introspection is required on the part ofmanagers to take account of, and accommodate, these research insights.

As such, a bipartite approach is required. Consequently, managersshould accord importance not only to industrial corporate brand imagebut also to the attributes which underpin and inform an industrialcorporate brand.

Since, the attributes of a corporate brand are assessed by organi-zational buyers are undertaken in a reasoned, systematized and pro-tracted manner managers should match such cognitive deliberations byensuring that the traits which underpin a corporate brand are clearlycommunicated in detail to organizational buyers. In addition, managersshould ensure they are fully appraised of the distinguishing and de-fining traits that inform a corporate brand and which ensure the cor-porate brand promise is delivered. This corresponds to the view that acorporate brand promise is realized via an organization’s corporateidentity where corporate identity equates to the distinguishing featuresof an entity (Balmer, 2012a). As such, this requires not only on-goingmanagement of both the corporate identity and corporate brand butalso entails mindfulness in terms of alignment and coordination be-tween the above along with corporate brand identity, communications,culture, corporate brand promise etc and which is informed by an ex-plicit corporate marketing logic (Balmer, 2012a, 2012b). In terms ofidentifying key service attributes/attributes which require improve-ment, senior marketing managers could conduct a simple importance-performance analysis (IPA).

However, the study also showed that organizational buyers accordpriority, in terms of decision making and image formation, to System 1reasoning. As such, corporate brand image (which was shaped bySystem 1 thinking) was of greater importance and consequence thanSystem 2 reasoning which focussed on corporate brand attributes.Given that with System 1 theory, organizational buyers engage in ef-fortless heuristics, necessitating a speedy appraisal of information witha response that is affective in character managers should give priority toindustrial corporate brand image. As such, it behoves managers to en-sure that their industrial corporate brand not only have has a clearvisual identity (corporate brand marque) and verbal identifier (corpo-rate brand name) but also a clear, and memorable, corporate brandpromise. Therefore, a credible, attractive and meaningful corporatebrand covenant needs to be developed and on-going corporate brandcommunications strategies should be in place to ensure awareness ofthe corporate brand name, logo and, moreover, corporate brand pro-mise.

The importance of the above management approaches was testifiedin the findings of this study which revealed that a positive industrialcorporate brand image engenders loyalty among industrial customersand, moreover, is equated with a willingness to pay a price premium foran industrial corporate brand having a highly positive corporate image.Given the above, it is apparent that the acquisition and maintenance ofa positive corporate brand image by logistics firms accords significantstrategic advantage to industrial corporate logistics brands operating ina major transitional economy such as China. Consequently, building afavorable industrial corporate brand image should be an indelible partof logistics firms’ strategic planning and management.

Table 7Hypothesis test results.

Hypotheses β(t)p Results

H1a. In China, Industrial corporate brand image positively relates to retention. 0.23(4.38)** supportedH1b. In China, Industrial corporate brand image positively relates to price premium. 0.29(5.47)** supportedH2a. In China, Industrial logistic service attribute evaluation positively relates to retention. 0.54(11.10)** supportedH2b. In China, Industrial logistic service attribute evaluation positively relates to price premium. 0.45(8.65)** supportedH3. In China, Logistic service attribute evaluation positively relates to industrial corporate brand image. 0.56(13.54)** supportedH4a. Industrial corporate brand image partially mediates the relationships between logistic service attribute evaluation retention in China. 0.30(7.98)** supportedH4b. Industrial corporate brand image partially mediates the relationships between logistic service attribute evaluation and price premium in China. 0.25(6.91)** supported


9

6.3. Limitations and future research

While the research insights of this study represent a meaningfuladvance in our comprehension of the significance of industrial corpo-rate brand image in China, the world’s foremost developing country,there are some research limitations to this study. One limitation is thatthe extant literature on which this study is grounded is primarily basedon insights from developed western economies rather than from de-veloping nations, or more particularly, on China. Furthermore, the re-searchers have utilized measures from scales developed in western B2Ccontexts. In terms of future research, there is utility in generatingmeasures that are derived from Chinese economic and cultural contexts.Finally, this study has a specific focus on industrial corporate brandimages of logistics brands operating in China offering express parcel/postage services: it does not claim to provide insights for similar, albeitnon-express, logistic corporate brands.

In terms of further research, additional studies could ascertain theapplicability of the research findings reported here to other transitionaleconomies in Asia (e.g. India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnametc.) and, more generally, with the global logistics sector. Additionalavenues for research could entail exploring the salience of an industrialcorporate brand image by contemplating alternative outcome variables.These could include the cross-buying of new service innovations (ex-tension) offered by the same industrial corporate brand and the effectsof positive word-of-mouth, including comments posted on on-line socialmedia for instance. Finally, as suggested in the cognitive psychologyliterature in terms of dual process theory (Dhar & Gorlin, 2013; Evans,1984; Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Graf & Landwehr, 2015; Kahneman &Frederick, 2002; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Stanovich & West, 2000), therelative strength of the two systems of processing, and their interactionscan be influenced by various personal (e.g., skilfulness, tiredness) andsituational (e.g., time pressure, demandingness of task, availability ofinformation) factors. As such, we argue that the above also meritscrutiny within marketing and more specifically within a B2B setting.Such research insights could enhance the research insights detailed inthis study.

References

Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journalof Marketing Management, 5(1), 63–76.

Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporatereputations: Reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8),1048–1063.

Alvesson, M. (1990). Organization: From substance to image. Organization Studies, 11(3),273–394.

Alwi, S. F. S., & Kitchen, P. J. (2014). Projecting corporate brand image and behavioralresponse in business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes? Journal ofBusiness Research, 67(11), 2324–2336.

Andreassen, T. W., & Lindestad, B. (1998). The effect of corporate image in the formationof customer loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 82–92.

Aydin, S., & Özer, G. (2005). The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in theTurkish mobile telecommunication market. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8),910–925.

Aydinli, A., Bertini, M., & Lambrecht, A. (2014). Price promotion for emotional impact.Journal of Marketing, 78(4), 80–96.

Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of GeneralManagement, 21(1), 24–46.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001a). The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate brandmanagement. Journal of General Management, 27(1), 1–17.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001b). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate mar-keting. Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3–4), 248–291.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2010). Explicating corporate brands and their management: Reflectionsand directions from 1995. Journal of Brand Management, 18(3), 180–196.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2012a). Corporate brand management imperatives: Custodianship,credibility, and calibration. California Management Review, 54(3), 6–33.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2012b). Strategic corporate brand alignment: Perspectives from identitybased views of corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1064–1092.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2013). Corporate brand orientation: What is it? What of it? Journal ofBrand Management, 20(9), 723–741.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Chen, W. (2015). China's brands, China's brand development strategiesand Corporate brand communications in China. Journal of Brand Management, 22(3),175–193.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Chen, W. (2017). China’s brands, China’s Brand Development Strategies

and Corporate Brand Communications in China. Advances in Chinese Brand Management.London: Palgrave Macmillan19–47.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972–997.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2003). Revealing the Corporation. Perspectives on identity,image, reputation, corporate branding and corporate-level marketing. London: Routledge.

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. AmericanPsychologist, 54(7), 462–479.

Barich, H., & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. SloanManagement Review, 32(2), 94–104.

Batra, R., Venkatram, R., Alden, D. L., Benedict, J., Steenkamp, E. M., & Ramachander, S.(2000). Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in devel-oping countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 83–95.

Becker, S., Bryman, A., & Ferguson, H. (2012). Understanding research for social policy andsocial work: Themes, methods and approaches. Bristol: Policy Press.

Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-businessmarket. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371–380.

Bernstein, D. (1984). Company image and reality. Rinehart and Winston, Eastbourne: Holt.Blombäck, A., & Axelsson, B. (2007). The role of corporate brand image in the selection of

new subcontractors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(6), 418–430.Bolger, J. F. (1959). How to evaluate your company image. Journal of Marketing, 24(2),

7–10.Boorstin, D. (1961). The image, or what happened to the American dream? New York:

Atheneum.Boulding, K. (1956). The image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Bravo, R., Montaner, T., & Pina, J. M. (2010). Corporate brand image in retail banking:

Development and validation of a scale. The Service Industries Journal, 30(8),1199–1218.

Bristol, L. H. (1960). Developing the corporate image: A management guide to public relations.New York: Scribner.

Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester: Image andImpression Management.

Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., & Pitt, L. F. (2010). Corporate image and reputation in B2Bmarkets: Insights from CI/ARG 2008. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5),709–711.

Burt, S. L., & Sparks, L. (2002). Corporate branding, retailing, and retail inter-nationalization. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2–3), 2–3.

Colman, A. M. (2015). Oxford dictionary of psychology (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Crespi, L. P. (1961). Some observations on the concept of image. Public RelationsQuarterly, 25, 115–119.

Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputationwhere manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. IndustrialMarketing Management, 36(2), 230–240.

Da Silva, R. V., & Alwi, S. F. S. (2006). Cognitive, affective attributes and conative, be-havioural responses in retail corporate branding. Journal of Product & BrandManagement, 15(5), 293–305.

Da Silva, R. V., & Alwi, S. F. S. (2007). Online corporate brand image, satisfaction andloyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 16(3), 119–144.

Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decisionmaking. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.

Davies, G., Chun, R., DaSilva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and compe-titiveness. London: Routledge.

Dawar, N. D. N., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2002). Rethinking marketing programs foremerging markets. Long Range Planning, 35(5), 457–474.

De Roeck, K., Maon, F., & Lejeune, C. (2013). Taking up the challenge of corporatebranding: An integrative framework. European Management Review, 10(3), 137–151.

Dhar, R., & Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference con-struction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 528–542.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative in-dicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2),269–277.

Dichter, E. (1985). What's an image? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2(1), 75–81.Ding, J.-F., Liang, G.-S., Yeh, C.-H., & Yeh, Y.-C. (2005). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-

making model for the selection of courier service providers: An empirical study fromshippers' perspective in Taiwan. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 7(3), 250–261.

Douglas, S. P., Craig, C. S., & Nijssen, E. J. (2001). Integrating branding strategy acrossmarkets: Building international brand architecture. Journal of International Marketing,9(2), 97–114.

Dowling, G. R. (1986). Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management,15(2), 109–115.

Dowling, G. R. (1993). Developing your coporate image into a corporate asset. Long RangePlanning, 26(2), 101–109.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P., & Lowe, A. (2008). Management research:Theory and practice. Sage, London, UK, 101, 210.

Essamri, A., McKechnie, S., & Winklhofer, H. (2019). Co-creating corporate brand identitywith online brand communities: A managerial perspective. Journal of BusinessResearch, 96(3), 366–375.

Evans, J. S. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal ofPsychology, 75(4), 451–468.

Evans, J. S. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395.

Evans, J. S., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition ad-vancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.

Fill, C., & Dimopoulou, E. (1999). Shaping corporate images: Attributes used to formimpressions of pharmaceutical companies. Corporate Reputation Review, 2(3),


10

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(20)30202-2/h0005

























































































































202–213.Flax, J., Bick, G., & Abratt, R. (2016). The perceptions of supplier-buyer relations and its

affect on the corporate brand. Journal of Brand Management, 23(1), 22–37.Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate

strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation

Review, 1(2), 5–13.Foster, T. A., & Armstrong, R. (2004). Top 25 third-party logistics providers extend their

global reach. Global Logistics & Supply Chain Strategies, 8(5), 32–48.Garbett, T. F. (1988). How to build a corporation identity and project its image. Lexington,

Massachetts: Lexington Books.Glynn, M. S. (2012). Primer in B2B brand-building strategies with a reader practicum.

Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 666–675.Graf, L. K., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aes-

thetics the pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 19(4), 395–410.

Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate re-putation. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695–702.

Greyser, S. A. (1999). Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation. CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, 4(4), 177–181.

Greyser, S., & Urde, M. (2019). What does your corporate brand stand for? It's harder tocreate a strong identity for an entire company than for a product. Harvard BusinessReview, 97(1), 80–88.

Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.

Gyrd-Jones, R., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2013). Revisiting the complexities of corporatebranding: Issues, paradoxes, solutions. Journal of Brand Management, 20(7), 571–589.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squaresstructural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. TheJournal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2013). The dynamics of corporate brand charisma:Routinization and activation at Carlsberg IT. Scandinavian Journal of Management,29(2), 147–162.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporatebrand? Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 129–134.

Hawabhay, B. B., Abratt, R., & Peters, M. (2009). The role of corporate communications indeveloping a corporate brand image and reputation in Mauritius. CorporateReputation Review, 12(1), 3–20.

Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for sup-plier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of OperationalResearch, 202(1), 16–24.

Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Singh, J. J., & Sierraet, V. (2019). Do customer perceptions ofcorporate services brand ethicality improve brand equity? Considering the roles ofbrand heritage, brand image, and recognition benefits. Journal of Business Ethics,154(2), 441–459.

Ind, N. (1997). The corporate brand. London: Palgrave Macmillan1–13.Ind, N. (1998). An integrated approach to corporate branding. Journal of Brand

Management, 5(5), 323–329.James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Jharkharia, S., & Shankar, R. (2007). Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic

network process (ANP) approach. Omega, 35(3), 274–289.Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral eco-

nomics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in

intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Kapferer, J.-N. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic

thinking. London: Kogan Page.Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.Kennedy, D. S. H. (1977). Nurturing corporate images. European Journal of Marketing,

11(3), 120–164.Khojastehpour, M., Ferdous, A. S., & Polonsky, M. (2015). Addressing the complexities of

managing domestic and multinational corporate brands. European Journal ofMarketing, 22(5), 467–484.

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment ap-proach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.

Kotler, P., & Pfoertsch, W. (2007). Being known or being one of many: The need for brandmanagement for business-to-business (B2B) companies. Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, 22(6), 357–362.

Leek, S., & Christodoulides, G. (2012). A framework of brand value in B2B markets: Thecontributing role of functional and emotional components. Industrial MarketingManagement, 41(1), 106–114.

Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A., & Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image and com-pany employment image in explaining application intentions. Journal of EconomicPsychology, 24(1), 1–15.

Lin, P.-C., & Lee, C.-H. (2009). How online vendors select parcel delivery carriers.Transportation Journal, 48(3), 20–31.

Lin, Z., & He, X. (2017). The images of foreign versus domestic retailer brands in China: amodel of corporate brand image and store image. In J. M. T. Balmer, & W. F. Chen(Eds.). Advances in Chinese brand management (pp. 289–315). London: PalgraveMacmillan.

Liu, Y., Foscht, T., Eisingerich, A. B., & Tsai, H.-T. (2018). Strategic management ofproduct and brand extensions: Extending corporate brands in B2B vs. B2C markets.Industrial Marketing Management, 71, 147–159.

Low, B. (2007). Huawei technologies corporation: From local dominance to globalchallenge? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(2), 138–144.

Luoma, J. (2016). Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens.European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 816–826.

Makkonen, H., Olkkonen, R., & Halinen, A. (2012). Organizational buying as muddlingthrough: A practice–theory approach. Journal of Business Research, 65(6), 773–780.

Marquardt, A. J., Golicic, S. L., & Davis, D. F. (2011). B2B services branding in the lo-gistics services industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(1), 47–57.

Martenson, R. (2007). Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty: A study ofthe store as a brand, store brands and manufacturer brands. International Journal ofRetail & Distribution Management, 35(7), 544–555.

Martineau, P. (1958a). The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review,36(January–February), 47–55.

Martineau, P. (1958b). Sharper focus for the corporate image. Harvard Business Review,36(6), 49–58.

Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate identity: Acategorisation from the practioners' perspectives. European Journal of Marketing,40(7–8), 846–869.

Meyer, K. E., & Estrin, S. (2001). Brownfield entry in emerging markets. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 32(3), 575–584.

Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. C. (2009). Corporate branding and brand architecture: Aconceptual framework. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 31–54.

Mohan, M., Voss, K. E., Jiménez, F. R., & Gammoh, B. S. (2018). Corporate brands asbrand allies. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(1), 41–56.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: Sage.Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in custo-

mers’ retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4),227–236.

Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designinginteractive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65–77.

Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance–performance analysis. Tourism Management, 22(6),617–627.

Panitz, E. (1988). Distributor image and marketing strategy. Industrial MarketingManagement, 17(4), 315–323.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-imagemanagement. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.

Park, Y., Choi, J. K., & Zhang, A. (2009). Evaluating competitiveness of air cargo expressservices. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(2),321–334.

Persson, N. (2010). An exploratory investigation of the elements of B2B brand image andits relationship to price premium. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8),1269–1277.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasioncommunication and persuasion. London: Springer1–24.

Rahman, N. A. A., Melewar, T., & Sharif, A. M. (2014). The establishment of industrialbranding through dyadic logistics partnership success (LPS): The case of theMalaysian automotive and logistics industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1),67–76.

Rindell, A., & Strandvik, T. (2010). Corporate brand evolution: Corporate brand imagesevolving in consumers' everyday life. European Business Review, 22(3), 276–286.

Rindell, A., Santos, P. S., & Pinto de Lima, A. (2015). Two sides of a coin: Connectingcorporate brand heritage to consumers’ corporate image heritage. Journal of BrandManagement, 22(5), 467–484.

Schuiling, I., & Kapferer, J.-N. (2004). Executive insights: real differences between localand international brands: Strategic implications for international marketers. Journalof International Marketing. 12(4), 97–112.

Sevel, L., Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2018). Managing across a corporate and product brandportfolio: Evidence from a large South African service organization. Journal of Product& Brand Management, 27(1), 18–28.

Seyedghorban, Z., Matanda, M. J., & LaPlaca, P. (2016). Advancing theory and knowledgein the business-to-business branding literature. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),2664–2677.

Silva, R., Gerwe, O., & Becerra, M. (2017). Corporate brand and hotel performance: Aresource-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 79, 23–30.

Sims, J. T. (1979). Measuring the industrial firm's image. Industrial Marketing Management,8(4), 341–347.

Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psy-chology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131.

Sonnier, G., & Ainslie, A. (2011). Estimating the value of brand-image associations: Therole of general and specific brand image. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3),518–531.

Spector, A. J. (1961). Basic dimensions of the corporate image. Journal of Marketing, 25,47–51.

Spyropoulou, S., Skarmeas, D., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2010). The role of corporate image inbusiness-to-business export ventures: A resource-based approach. Industrial MarketingManagement, 39(5), 752–760.

Srivastava, K., & Sharma, N. K. (2013). Service quality, corporate brand image, andswitching behavior: The mediating role of customer satisfaction and repurchase in-tention. Services Marketing Quarterly, 34(4), 274–291.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implicationsfor the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.

Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. M., & Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images: Construct definition,measurement issues, and theory development. Marketing Theory, 1(2), 201–224.

Swanson, C. E. (1957). Branded and company images changed by advertising. ADMAP,302–318.


11













































































































































































Swoboda, B., & Hirschmann, J. (2016). Does being perceived as global pay off? Ananalysis of leading foreign and domestic multinational corporations in India, Japan,and the United States? International Marketing Review, 24(3), 1–30.

Stuart, H. (1999). Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity managementprocess. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 200–207.

Törmälä, M., & Gyrd-Jones, R. I. (2017). Development of new B2B venture corporatebrand identity: A narrative performance approach. Industrial Marketing Management,65, 76–85.

Törmälä, M., & Saraniemi, S. (2018). The roles of business partners in corporate brandimage co-creation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(1), 29–40.

Tran, M.-A., Nguyen, B., Melewar, T. C., & Bodoh, J. (2015). Exploring the corporateimage formation process. Qualitative Market Research, 18(1), 86–114.

Tu, Y.-T., Wang, C.-M., & Chang, H.-C. (2012). Corporate brand image and customersatisfaction on loyalty: An empirical study of Starbucks coffee in Taiwan. Journal ofSocial and Development Sciences, 3(1), 24–32.

Tuškej, U., & Podnar, K. (2018). Consumers’ identification with corporate brands: Brandprestige, anthropomorphism and engagement in social media. Journal of Product &Brand Management, 27(1), 3–17.

Tyler, W. P. (1957). The image, the brand and the consumer. Journal of Marketing, 22(2),162–165.

Urde, M. (1994). Brand orientation: A strategy for survival. Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 11(3), 18–32.

Vallaster, C., & Lindgreen, A. (2011). Corporate brand strategy formation: Brand actorsand the situational context for a business-to-business brand. Industrial MarketingManagement, 40(7), 1133–1143.

Voss, M. D., Page, T. J., Keller, S. B., & Ozment, J. (2006). Determining important carrierattributes: A fresh perspective using the theory of reasoned action. TransportationJournal, 45(3), 7–19.

Wallenburg, C. M., & Lukassen, P. (2011). Proactive improvement of logistics serviceproviders as driver of customer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 45(3),438–454.

Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. W., Jackson, P. R., & Beatty, S. E. (2009). Examining the ante-cedents and consequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective. BritishJournal of Management, 20(2), 187–203.

Walsh, G., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2004). A conceptualization of corporate reputation inGermany: An evaluation and extension of the RQ. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4),304–312.

Worcester, R. (1997). Managing the image of your bank: The glue that binds. InternationalJournal of Bank Marketing, 15(5), 146–152.

Webster, F. E., Jr (2000). Understanding the relationships among brands, consumers, andresellers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 17–23.

Xie, H. Y., & Boggs, D. J. (2006). Corporate branding versus product branding in emergingmarkets: A conceptual framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(4), 347–364.

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of

service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer per-

ceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1452–1460.

Professor John M.T. Balmer holds a personal chair as Professor of Corporate Marketingand is Director of the Marketing and Corporate Brand Research Group at Brunel BusinessSchool, Brunel University London (UK). He is quondam Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at Bradford School of Management (UK) where he is also VisitingProfessor. Known for his seminal work on corporate identity has is also sometimes re-garded as the “Father” of the corporate brand concept (1995). He also pioneered thecorporate marketing, corporate heritage identity, total corporate communications andmonarchical marketing notions and, penned the first academic articles in these afore-mentioned areas. Also co-conceived the corporate heritage brand/corporate brand with aheritage notions. He has published in leading journals including Journal of BusinessResearch, California Management Review, European Journal of Marketing, Marketing Theory,Long Range Planning, Journal of Business Ethics etc. Email: [email protected].

Dr Zhibin Lin is Associate Professor in Marketing at Durham University Business School(UK) and has research interests in digital marketing, transport, travel and tourism man-agement, and international business. He research has been published in a number ofleading journals including Journal of Business Research, Annals of TourismResearch, Tourism Management, European Journal of Marketing, Information &Management, etc. Email: [email protected].

Dr Weifeng Chen is a senior lecturer at Brunel University Business School London (UK)specialising in international business strategy, international innovation management,brand management and Chinese Brands. His research has been published in RegionalStudies, the Journal of Organizational Change Management, the International Journal ofProduction Economics, European Journal of Marketing, the Journal of InformationSystem Management, Advances in Information Systems Management and theInternational Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, etc. Email: [email protected].

Dr Xinming He is Professor of Marketing at Durham University Business School (UK)where he is also Director of the Marketing Research Group. His primary research interestsare in international marketing/international business strategy and, more specifically, inrelation to international market selection, export channel selection, pricing, innovation,and overseas acquisition to achieve superior performance. He has published in leadinginternational scholarly journals including Journal of Business Research, Journal ofManagement, Management and Organization Review, Management International Review,European Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review, and International BusinessReview etc. Email: [email protected].


12
















































The role of corporate brand image for B2B relationships of ...

Documents